What if you could only get your current Level in Corruptions while at your current Level?

That's still up to 55 Corruption rolls by 10th Level. Sounds like more than enough to me, and it simulates a 'prolonged exposure' effect, which makes you weirder as you go along. Of course, others might like a rotten streak of the dice totally corrupting a 1st Level Wizard.

(Of course, I'm leaving to go camping tomorrow, so I won't be able to discuss this until next week, by which time it'll be proclaimed as brilliant, torn down by running some numbers and kicked to the side, more or less in that order. Feel free to leave out the brilliant part, but personally I like that part the best.)

I wouldn't EXACTLY say that - but there needs to be a way to REMOVE corruption, at least to some degree (I'd say you could NEVER remove your first "taint" unless it's somehow something with a listed duration, but anything after that .. there should be a purification ritual or something (or maybe there IS; I haven't QUITE hit the spell lists yet on my read through - though using magic to cure corruption seems like a great duel-edged sword!), or ... well, nobody would really want to play a spell caster after losing two or three to it...

I was thinking of allowing a Will Save between adventures, when PCs usually level up, for each Corruption aquired. Save DC = 10+ Wizard level. If you pass the Will save, the Corruption recedes (tentacles fall of, or claws split back into fingers, donkey ears get back to normality..)

Otherwise some Cleric spell could have the aim of allowing such a save or restoring a previous condition altogether. This could be a Restoration spell that cures also lost Ability points.

Because in my game i think i'd like people to regained Ability points only between adventures, not each and every night, like HPs.

The problem is that gonzo spellcasters will embrace Corruption. You'll get guys casting as often as possible because they want to play freaks with tentacles.

I can picture in my mind NPCs that just don't care for mutations 'cos they live alone in a dungeon, surrounded by various monstrosities. If a first level wizard casts so much as to get tentacles, lizard eyes, albino skin and a lion mane... I think that any other person in the realm will hunt him down as a minion of evil (yes, in a fantasy medieval cliché i expect people to associate ugly with evil!) and eventually put an end to his corrupted existence.

I think that any other person in the realm will hunt him down as a minion of evil (yes, in a fantasy medieval cliché i expect people to associate ugly with evil!) and eventually put an end to his corrupted existence.

And this is why wizards prize spells like Charm Person and Polymorph, they can define how others see and react to them.

I can picture in my mind NPCs that just don't care for mutations 'cos they live alone in a dungeon, surrounded by various monstrosities. If a first level wizard casts so much as to get tentacles, lizard eyes, albino skin and a lion mane... I think that any other person in the realm will hunt him down as a minion of evil (yes, in a fantasy medieval cliché i expect people to associate ugly with evil!) and eventually put an end to his corrupted existence.

Yeah, sure - and then what?

Suppose I get four players (which is an optimistic projection, for me). At least one makes a wizard.

If the wizard PC is repulsive to civilized human NPCs, so what? Either the rest of the party is there to cover for him, or else some of the players decide DCC isn't fun and stop showing up.

If the wizard player stops showing up, DCC continues without corruption.

If the wizard player stays while other players quit, the party becomes increasingly dominated by the needs of the Corrupted wizard.

Even if I have just one player, he is supposed to have one high-level character and at least one henchman. This means that his high-level Corrupted wizard can have a cleric or thief or fighter henchman who goes into town and buys food, quill pens, ink, and parchment.

I hate to keep banging the drum on this issue, but I'll repeat it again: we, as judges, can't assume that our players will stick with our favorite games. Just because WE think and swords-and-sorcery is better than sliced bread doesn't mean that our players will agree.

I think Corruption as it stands is not going to work - i.e. it's not going to provide most play groups with the experience that the designer intended. The designer intended players to feel tension about whether they use magic or not, and I don't think most players of wizard characters are going to feel any tension.

The designer intended players to feel tension about whether they use magic or not, and I don't think most players of wizard characters are going to feel any tension.

I know what you're talking about, but i think that DMs and players should share the same feelings about the game. If you like a lot of In-Character play, you should avoid players that keep talking about aquascooters and shout pokémon attacks when the warrior charges. Same way, if you play DCC, probably you like (or LOVE, like in my case) most of the fluff and roleplaying premises it presents. Corruption is clearly meant to be a bad thing. If a player says "i don't f...ing care about what my wizard looks like, as long as it doesn't affect his stats" i think he's a powerplayer, i.e. not the right player for DCC.

I mean, if you're worried about a wizard player quitting because you're just roleplaying lots of people hunting him down as an aberration (something like Dragon Age: Origins), and he doesn't want to bear the consequences of his reckless abuse of magic, you're better off without him.

Players are free to do what they want, as long as they are ready to face any consequence the DM might feel appropriate.

Players are free to do what they want, as long as they are ready to face any consequence the DM might feel appropriate.

+1. Exactly. Reminds me when I played CoC. I would consider other actions in defeating the cultist or, worse, the aberrations since I knew too well the consequences on my PC's Sanity if I used magic casually like in DnD or Pathfinder.

I mean, if you're worried about a wizard player quitting because you're just roleplaying lots of people hunting him down as an aberration (something like Dragon Age: Origins), and he doesn't want to bear the consequences of his reckless abuse of magic, you're better off without him.

No, I'm worried about the wizard player saying, "Ha ha, the rubes are coming with pitchforks and torches" and then casting four or five spells to totally dominate the combat.

The wizard class is powerful. Corruption just doesn't give any incentives to prevent powergamers from being powergamers. A powergamer wizard can use the rules as written to take over the story and make it into something that is like a Lovecraft story where the bad guys win and feel good about it.

Corruption is supposed to be a disincentive, but it doesn't hamper powergamers as written.

We've had any number of suggestions about seriously hampering powergamers, such as permanent ability drain, hitting a maximum Corruption score and dying instantly, etc.

All of those suggestions would work to stop powergamers from taking over the story. If Corruption insta-killed them and prevented them from stealing the spotlight, Corruption *would* work as a disincentive to powergamers.

I mean, if you're worried about a wizard player quitting because you're just roleplaying lots of people hunting him down as an aberration (something like Dragon Age: Origins), and he doesn't want to bear the consequences of his reckless abuse of magic, you're better off without him.

No, I'm worried about the wizard player saying, "Ha ha, the rubes are coming with pitchforks and torches" and then casting four or five spells to totally dominate the combat.

Well, i was thinking that after he blasts away 50 0-level peasants, he only made his position worse.. Like in GTA, you kill the cops, then you get SWAT and army coming at you.I would send them Inquisitors and other high level organized NPCs.. that should be able to stand most of what the Wizard can toss at them.

yfr wrote:

We've had any number of suggestions about seriously hampering powergamers, such as permanent ability drain, hitting a maximum Corruption score and dying instantly, etc.

All of those suggestions would work to stop powergamers from taking over the story. If Corruption insta-killed them and prevented them from stealing the spotlight, Corruption *would* work as a disincentive to powergamers.

Oh I like both of these!!! absolutely! I suggested allowing a Will Save at the end of an adventure for any gained Corruption: pass, it slowly fades and everything goes back to normal; fail, the corruption is now permanent. I could houserule that whenever you are suffering from 10 corruptions (even non-permanent ones) you simply become host to a demon, and lose any control over your character. That character could become a nice evil NPC!

I also house ruled that ability damage could be semipermanent, allowing PCs to regain it not every night but between adventures.There could be severe ability damage, maybe called Abilty Drain, that is simply permanent

Ask yourself why corruption is happening. Is it because you've done something (either consciously or subconsciously) to anger/annoy your patron or the supernatural entity that is providing the magic? Or is it because you accidentally mismanaged the spell and something unexpected happened due to the arcane nature of magic and how it interacts with the physical world?

In either situation, should there be any reason why the effects can't be mitigated by some further action(s). e.g., apologising/pleasing your patron, casting counteracting magic? If so, this will most likely come once the character has gained more experience, had time to research a 'cure', etc.

Thus, mechanistically, could we not allow Wizards a saving throw (with level as a positive DM) at the time they level up? That way, there is the corruption to deal with whilst at that level (and all its associated roleplaying opportunities), the possibility of removing the corruption and so not further/continually hindering the character/player, but also the possibility that the corruption will remain. If you still consider that to be too lenient, one could pay a price for the saving throw, e.g., forego your hitpoint increase for the opportunity to remove those damn ram horns!

Apologies if this has already been mooted. It's getting hard to keep up with the volume of posts/ideas.

, could we not allow Wizards a saving throw (with level as a positive DM) at the time they level up? That way, there is the corruption to deal with whilst at that level (and all its associated roleplaying opportunities), the possibility of removing the corruption and so not further/continually hindering the character/player, but also the possibility that the corruption will remain.

The real problem with magic now is it doesn't make sense for a sane person to get involved with it. If you have a tool that fails on average 40% of the time for competently trained individual why would you ever rely on such a tool? You would be that crazy? (40% equal 1st level wizard with 16 Int (over-inflated for hyperbole) has a +3 bonus to his spellcheck. An 9 on a d20 nets a 12 which is success for a first level spell. So 1-8 on the die fails. That's 40% chance of failure.)

That's not even discussing the 5% catastrophic failures.

I really don't understand how the Patron gets his claws (mandibles, suckers, whatever) into the poor fool when the first time he attempts to cast a spell, it fails 2 in 5 times. Again, the wizard must be OCD to spend the effort learning the weird words and odd finger positions that can cast a spell. And as he gets better at them, the failure rate goes down. At 2nd level it's down to 35% assuming no Int loss.

The real problem with magic now is it doesn't make sense for a sane person to get involved with it. If you have a tool that fails on average 40% of the time for competently trained individual why would you ever rely on such a tool? You would be that crazy? (40% equal 1st level wizard with 16 Int (over-inflated for hyperbole) has a +3 bonus to his spellcheck. An 9 on a d20 nets a 12 which is success for a first level spell. So 1-8 on the die fails. That's 40% chance of failure.)

That's not even discussing the 5% catastrophic failures.

I really don't understand how the Patron gets his claws (mandibles, suckers, whatever) into the poor fool when the first time he attempts to cast a spell, it fails 2 in 5 times. Again, the wizard must be OCD to spend the effort learning the weird words and odd finger positions that can cast a spell. And as he gets better at them, the failure rate goes down. At 2nd level it's down to 35% assuming no Int loss.

It would almost make sense to lower that higher end power of some of the starter spells. On those spells, change the failure results to something like:

So on average, he will be able to cast his starting six spells a total of 7 times.

I'm talking about the insanity of using "magic" to start with. It fails 40+% of the time. That's crazy. What tool do you use of a continuing basis that fails outright (and can't be used again) for 24-hours 40% of the time? Magic is so unreliable only stark raving mad lunatics should be involved in it. Rational people don't devote their livelihoods to something with such low odds. Especially when even if it succeeds, it doesn't feed you, cloth you, etc.

Game balance-wise, it works perfectly as your math says. But I just don't see the up side for the sane individual.

So on average, he will be able to cast his starting six spells a total of 7 times.

I'm talking about the insanity of using "magic" to start with. It fails 40+% of the time. That's crazy. What tool do you use of a continuing basis that fails outright (and can't be used again) for 24-hours 40% of the time? Magic is so unreliable only stark raving mad lunatics should be involved in it. Rational people don't devote their livelihoods to something with such low odds. Especially when even if it succeeds, it doesn't feed you, cloth you, etc.

Game balance-wise, it works perfectly as your math says. But I just don't see the up side for the sane individual.

Ahh... but look how the % chance goes up as you level up. So it is a trade off at low levers for more consistency at higher levels. I

The rational number crunching side of me agrees with you. I would rather have the spell chart like you suggested... lesser successful effect on a lower roll (but spell lost). I would actually prefer a bit more consistency in my magic.

1st level wizards are like apprentices... they flubb spells all of the time. Even as a wizard levels up and learns new (higher level) spells... he struggles to get them cast properly until he gains more experience 'levels up further'.

Right now Wizards... even with their 40% failure are the most powerful of the character classes. If that higher % chance did not exist, then they would dominate play.

It fails 40+% of the time. That's crazy. What tool do you use of a continuing basis that fails outright ... 40% of the time? Magic is so unreliable only stark raving mad lunatics should be involved in it. Rational people don't devote their livelihoods to something with such low odds.

While not perfect, I cannot help but think of baseball as a counter-example.

You would be the greatest hitter who ever lived if you only failed 40% of the time at bat. Heck, you would be the greatest hitter if you succeeded 40% of the time at bat.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum